Isaiah 9:6 - Wonderful Counselor

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6).

It's Christmas time and this is an oh, so popular Christmas verse. I thought I'd take a few weeks to examine these four titles of Christ from the verse. Up first: Wonderful Counselor.

Some versions separate "Wonderful" from "Counselor" with a comma. More modern versions make "Wonderful" an adjective for "Counselor". No matter. We'll put them together because it won't change a thing.

"Wonderful" references the marvelous. It is actually pointing, in Hebrew, to the miraculous. Whatever we can say about Christ, He is miraculous. Wonderful. That is, causing us to be full of wonder. If you've lost that, you're simply not paying attention.

But the second term, "Counselor", is itself wonderful. What is a counselor? A counselor is anyone who gives counsel. (Thanks, Stan, we wouldn't have figured that out.) Seriously, it's anyone who provides guidance in whatever questions or concerns you might have. What determines whether or not the counsel provided is of any value? Well, it would be the quality of the counselor. If the one providing the counsel is an expert, is knowledgeable, is well informed on the subject at hand, you will likely listen. If not, you probably won't.

What, then, is the quality of Christ as counselor? Well, consider this. In biblical terms there are three forms, three levels as it were, of knowing. The first level is knowledge. The second is understanding. The highest is wisdom. Knowledge is the simple possession of facts. Information. Understanding is the ability to comprehend those facts, recognize their correlation, see their inner workings. How do these facts work? That's understanding. Wisdom, then, takes this understanding and applies it to practice. Wisdom is the ability to understand information sufficiently to properly apply it to the present situation in the correct manner.

So, what does Christ know? The disciples told Christ, "We know that you know all things" (John 16:30). We know that God is omniscient, and we know that Jesus is God Incarnate. We know that "God is greater than our heart and knows all things" (1 John 3:20). Perfect knowledge. God never learned a thing because He already knew it all. We know that with God's perfect knowledge and intimate involvement in all reality comes perfect understanding. We know that He fully understands everything because everything is held together in Him. But beyond understanding, we know that He is "the only Wise God" (Rom 16:27). He stands alone in wisdom. He is wisdom. He knows all things, understands all things, and knows perfectly what is the right thing to do at the right time in the right way. "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him" (James 1:5).

Christ truly is miraculous -- wonderful. But as a Counselor, there is no equal. He is the Counselor that needs no counsel. Perfect knowledge of all things, perfect understanding of that knowledge, and the absolutely perfect wisdom to apply it. If you ever have a question, a concern, He is the perfect adviser. If you wonder which way to go, what to do, how to do it, what would be best, He is the Wonderful Counselor. It doesn't get any better than that.

Break In

I enjoyed the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books. Humorous stuff. One book had a ship with an invisibility shield called an SEP. The idea was that the ship was so horribly ugly that your brain simply blocked it out. It was Someone Else's Problem -- SEP. I'm going to talk about another SEP situation.

Have you ever considered how difficult it is to break into church? No, I'm not talking about burglary. I'm just talking about getting oneself immersed into a local body of believers. On the face of it, you'd think it would be a snap. But I suspect, if you think about it, this isn't such an easy thing, at least not for many people.

Consider a parallel. You've heard that someone is having an open house. Everyone welcome. So you go on in. When you cross the threshold, you have entered a certain set of parameters. You are not at home. You are in their home. As such, you need to conform to their conditions. What are they? Well, you'll just have to find out. And hopefully you won't find out by transgressing them. You see, when you go into someone else's home, even with an invitation, you are in someone else's home and not your own. And that is the basic problem.

When you go to a new church, you are "invited", if not literally, figuratively. But you are not at home. You are in their home. So, you want to make this your home. How would you go about joining this family? Well, there is first the climate to consider. In any situation you will find a possible range of climates. A black man who goes to a KKK meeting will find the worst case -- a hostile climate. Up from there but certainly not much more comfortable is the indifferent climate. "We don't really care that you're here at all." Not hostile ... but not warm. The next step up would be warmth. In this climate people are friendly enough. They aren't repelling you. You're welcome to be in the same room. There is, however, one more level. That would be inviting. In this final level, people would be seeking you out. They would be asking you to join them, hoping you'll sit with them, working at getting to know you. Clearly this is the ultimate level.

Unfortunately, this is extremely rare in a church. In some churches you'll find a cold climate. They are indifferent to you. You're welcome to be there, but no one is going to give you the time of day. This is extremely common in large churches. If you're going to insinuate yourself into one of those, it will be through massive effort on your part. It can be done, but it's work. Most churches, however, I would likely classify as warm. You're welcome to be there. They will greet you with smiles during the greeting time. Certainly the greeter at the door was friendly enough. One or two might chat with you for a moment before or after the service. "Have I seen you before?" That sort of thing. But finding a church that seeks you out is rare. And that's the problem of breaking in.

You see, you've come into their house. You are the one in unknown territory. You are the one who is from the outside. If they worked at welcoming you, drawing you in, seeking you out, that could be overcome. But it's rare that they do that. So it is on your shoulders to both try to make yourself comfortable in a new situation and seek out people with which to connect among the sea of new faces. It's not easy except, perhaps, for the few genuine extroverts out there.

And it's not a pastor thing. First, pastors are few in a church. They can't do this with everyone. Second, no one would expect them to. It's not the pastor's job to engage with every individual. That would be the job of the congregation. And pastors are not likely capable of so molding a congregation to be outgoing and inviting. They might lead by example, but that only goes so far. The individuals in the church would need to step up to it.

I've never heard a sermon on this. I've never heard a pastor speak about it. And in all the churches that I've visited over my lifetime, I would guess that I could count the number of inviting churches on one hand ... or less. It's an individual thing. What about you? Are you an inviting person in your church? Are you seeking out others with which to connect, to minister, to build up, to be involved with? Or is that SEP -- Someone Else's Problem?

Genesis Principles - Rest

Continuing on the principles derived from Genesis that remain today, I'm going to examine the biblical concept of rest.

Yesterday we examined the concept of work. It is God-given. It is part of God's design. He gave Adam work right from the beginning and assigned him tasks that continue to this day. In contrast to -- or, perhaps, included in -- that concept would be the biblical concept of "rest".

We first see this concept introduced by God.

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation (Gen 2:1-3).

It's interesting first because clearly an Omnipotent Being has no need for rest. God didn't rest because He was tired. He didn't need to restore His energy, recharge His batteries, any such thing. But the concept of rest in Scripture is first applied to God.

This concept is carried further explained in Exodus.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exo 20:8-11).

"Oh, now, hold on, Stan. Are you saying that the Sabbath is a universal principle that is still in effect today?" Hold on. Let's not get ahead of me here. Follow along. Remember, the concept is "rest". The original concept was practiced by God. It involved the concept of not doing work ... for a limited time. How much time? In the biblical example it was one day out of seven.

In Exodus 20, the Sabbath was codified -- made into law. In Hebrew, the word means "intermission". "What? I thought it was 'Saturday'." No, not Saturday. Not "seventh day". Sabbath, then, is a day of rest, an intermission for daily living. The original principle set down by God was "one of seven". Further, when Jesus was asked about it He told the Pharisees, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Again, the principle of rest.

I'm not going to define the Sabbath day for you. For some it's definitely Saturday. For others it is now Sunday. For others it is any day at all. Paul wrote "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath" (Col 2:16). Which is yours? Not my problem.

What I will point to, however, is the Genesis Principle of rest. God ordained by example the idea of rest one day out of seven. Further, He blessed that day of rest and "made it holy." As such, the ongoing, Genesis Principle of "Sabbath" -- "intermission" -- may no longer be the Exodus concept of "the seventh day", but it is certainly still a day set aside for rest and worship. It isn't even for God's sake. The Sabbath was made for Man.

One more important consideration. The author of Hebrews said, "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb 4:9). This rest is illustrated by God's rest on the seventh day of creation (Heb 4:4) and fulfilled in our resting in faith in the finished work of Christ (Heb 4:9-10). Thus, the ultimate concept started by God as "rest" is found in resting by faith from our work of salvation in the promise of God's Son to save us.

Rest is not an optional idea. Man needs it. God designed it. God performed it when He didn't need to in order to demonstrate it to us. It illustrated our need for genuine, physical rest, our need for weekly time with God in worship and rest, and our ultimate and final rest in the finished work of Christ. None of that is optional. None of it is outdated, outmoded, passed into a former time. We need it all. Rest is God's idea. It's a good one.

Genesis Principles - Work

Continuing with the principles from Genesis that will continue to shape our lives, let's look at the concept of work. (I know, I know. "Look, Stan, if you're going to use four-letter words in this blog, I'm going to stop reading!" Bear with me.)

Many, many today view work as "the enemy". I've heard a lot of Christians who argue that work is a product of the Fall. They idea is that in an ideal world where there was not sin we'd be sitting around eating grapes and doing no work at all. That would be heaven on earth. So ... what does Genesis say about it?

And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Gen 1:28).

Now, that's interesting. Before the Fall, before sin, before Adam really messed things up, we have instructions from God: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." Apparently God started with the concept of fruitful labor. Let's see if that's consistent.

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name (Gen 2:19).

It would appear, then, that the very first thing we see God doing with Adam was to give him a job: name the animals. Imagine that! The time, the effort, the creativity, the bookkeeping. Okay, maybe not bookkeeping, but he not only had to name every creature but remember that name. Try it sometime. How many words can you make up? And remember afterwards? And this job that God assigned Adam was for a purpose. God understood that it was not good for Man to be alone, so He had Adam see all the animals (with mates) to recognize his own need for a mate.

The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him (Gen 2:20).

Get it, Adam? You are different. You need something. You need "a helper fit" for you.

One of the fundamental principles set down in Creation was the need to work. Man was given jobs to do. There was the tending of the garden. There was the subduing of the earth. There was being fruitful and multiplying. Work, work, work. It wasn't a curse; it was a product of a good God as a good thing to His good creation.

Later we find that things change. As a product of the Fall, Eve is promised pain in childbearing (which wouldn't have been there if no sin had occurred) and Adam is told

"Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Gen 3:17-19).

Don't buy the lie. Work is not of the devil. Fruitful labor is not a curse. Doing work is a gift from God, part of His original design for humans, something that remains today. Our popular American attempt to minimize work and glorify play is a product of Satan, not God. While it is true that work was made harder by sin (ironically, part of the sentence for the human race for violating God's command was hard labor for life), God ordained work and it is for our benefit. This is still true today. So is the command -- "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." We haven't succeeded at either, and today's world is pushing us toward giving up on both. And for those of you who dream of winning the lottery (or hitting it big some other way) and spending the rest of your life in leisure, understand that you'd be doing so against God's original design ... for your good. Hey, I have an idea! How about if we begin to appreciate the work God has given us to do? Well, it's a thought, anyway, even if work is a four-letter word.

Genesis Principles - Imago Dei

Remember, I'm working here on "Genesis Principles", concepts constructed at the beginning that cross time and bypass covenants or dispensations to affect all of life from the Old to the New Testament and into our day. Here's the concept we're going to see today:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Gen 1:26).

In theological circles the concept is called the Imago Dei, Latin for "the Image of God". Humans, according to the beginning of Scripture, are made in the image of God.

What does that mean? Well, some suggest it is a physical similarity. This, of course, makes no sense since God is spirit (John 4:24). But that very well could be one primary component. We have a spirit. The text, on the other hand, suggests at least one component of the image of God in humans. It says, "Let them have dominion." We would, then, be similar to God in the fact that He has given us some measure of dominion. We rule over the earth. An extension to that is found in the following verses where it says, "And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'" (Gen 1:28). There is, then, not only a measure of dominion, but a measure of control. "Subdue it." A task. But included in that command is another similarity to God: "Be fruitful and multiply." We are, then, a reflection of God when we create life. Reproduction is in the image of God. And therein is the primary concept of Imago Dei. We are a reflection of God. Like the moon reflecting the light of the sun, we reflect the glory of God.

One of the key components of the Imago Dei in humans is found indirectly in the simple fact that we are given dominion and we are given commands. Thus, humans, as a reflection of God, are moral creatures. Animals don't share the same moral structures. They don't have rules against theft and murder, for instance, which, when violated, threaten their souls. But as those who reflect the nature of God, we are creatures of morality at the core.

Some have suggested that the Imago Dei is gone. They suggest that it ended when Adam sinned. That concept would suggest that our primary reflection of the image of God was in our sinlessness. When that ended, so did the reflection. This simply isn't true. David, in Psalm 8, repeats the principle. He says, "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet" (Psa 8:4-6). Still in effect. When Noah and family left the ark, God instituted human government. In that institution, He called for capital punishment. The notion of putting someone to death for murder, you see, was ordained by God. But the reason for that extreme punishment was given after the Fall. What was the reason? "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). Thus, the Imago Dei was still in effect after Noah. And the principle was God's baseline for the value of human beings. Animals were not made in the image of God; humans are. Thus, James warns of the faulty use of the tongue: "With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God" (James 3:9). Still in effect.

If you examine the concept in theological circles, you'll find variations in definition and application. That's fine. Suffice it to say that we were created in the image of God and that this fact remains. Being in that image, whatever it means in its entirety, ought to alter how we behave, how we value human life, and how we view our Creator. As a first example, it is the fundamental basis for a pro-life (as opposed to "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice") position. Now, you can work out other applications.

Genesis Principles - Creator:Created

There is one system in theology known as Dispensationalism. There are, of course, others, but the prevalent one today is that one. In Dispensationalism the idea is that the history of the world has been in dispensations, actually stewardships. God has dealt with people in various ways over history, from Innocence with Adam and Eve through the Law with Moses through Grace in the Church age. (It's much more complicated and more steps than that, but you get the idea.) The notion, down at this end of the history pool, is that much of the Old Testament, then, belongs to an earlier Dispensation and is no longer applicable to us. In fact, it works the same way in some Covenantal theologies and others as well. Even if you're not in those categories, most Christians are under the impression that the Old Testament is no longer in effect in some way or another. And that's supported with Scripture.

Common to all Dispensations and all Covenants or whatever other form you'd like to take, however, is what I will be calling the Genesis Principles. These are principles set out in the first three chapters of Genesis. They are so basic as to be universal. They aren't part of the Mosaic Law which Paul says we are not under or the Abrahamic Covenant which was fulfilled in Christ or whatever other limiting factor. The Bible itself often traces its doctrines back to the beginning because these principles would remain in effect because they are prior to Dispensations, Covenants, or any other factor. So I'm going to spend some time outlining some Genesis Principles that should impact your life even today long after Genesis has come and gone.

The first is the principle of the Creator and the Created. This principle is found quite obviously in the very first verse of the Bible. Come on. Say it with me. "In the beginning, God created ..." (Gen 1:1). The rest of the first chapter consists of 31 verses detailing six days of ... creation. This isn't rocket science. (No, that would come much later.)

So? Well, in the first verse of the Bible the author of Genesis, inspired by God, set down a singular principle. In the beginning there was God ... and nothing else. Well, the angels could have existed, perhaps, but clearly God is a singularity, a "one of a kind". He told Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'" (Exo 3:14). God is unique in the universe in that He always has been. He is the First Mover, the Uncreated Creator. Of God the Son John says, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). So Genesis 1:1 lays out this primary principle. In the universe there is God, the Creator, and not God. The "not God" category would be "the created". That which was made.

This may sound basic and even boring, but think about it. Paul says that it was the created "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). What truth? The truth about the Creator (Rom 1:19-21). Instead of acknowledging God in His position as Creator, the created chose to exchange "the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25).

Since Adam, then, this has been our primary problem. We fail to recognize the distinction between Creator and creature. We prefer to elevate ourselves above the Creator, to serve the creature (ourselves) rather than the Creator. We do it by demanding that the Creator conform to our expectations and doubt when He fails to do so. We do it by siding with Man rather than God again and again because Man is easily as important as the Creator. We do it without thinking, without recognizing it, without caring. The word is "anthropocentrism". We make Man the center where God should be.

A fundamental condition is laid out in Genesis 1. There is a distinction between Creator and Created. There is one Creator. Only one. He has primacy, priority, authority, all rights, all privileges. The second we begin to diminish Him in any category, we are succumbing to the problem of the Created, failing to see the distinction and seeking, instead, to make ourselves like the Most High, a condition we will never achieve. I would suspect that we would be much better off if we could view life first through that first principle of Creator:Created distinction. It would tend to properly order a lot of things in life.

No Bias, No Agenda, Nonsense

The Supreme Court opted not to take the case today on the Prop 8 question. This is not a good sign for marriage. They have simply said, "The earlier rulings will stand", and marriage dies a little more in California ... and for the rest of us as we receive the ripples in the pond.

An interesting quote, though, from USA Today: "'2012 has already been the watershed year in the history of this movement,' says Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign."

Wait. I've been told repeatedly that there is no agenda, no movement, no coordinated effort. As opposed to "the history of this movement"? For those who are still quite sure there is no "homosexual agenda", I have a wonderful bridge I am selling that would fit nicely over a great plot of land I am selling at the Grand Canyon. Just let me know if you want one or both.

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Have you ever seen an argument that leads to a catastrophic conclusion? Let's take a biblical one, for instance. In Corinth there were those who were arguing that there was no such thing as the resurrection from the dead. Now, you know these people weren't thinking of the ramifications of their argument. Indeed, it would be fairly simple to make the argument itself. "You say there's such a thing? I've never seen it. Science has never seen it. I don't think it can be rationally supported. Can't be true." But Paul thinks it through.

¹³ But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ¹⁵ We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. ¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹ If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor 15:13-19).

So, Paul accepted their argument and took it to its logical conclusion. "If you're right," he said (and, trust me, there are those who are "in the church" who make the same claim.), "then Christ didn't rise, all we believe is false, we are without hope, and we're all lost."

Now, you can imagine the response of those who originally made the argument. "No, wait! That's not what we were thinking. That's not where we were going." No, you weren't. But it's where you end up if you start down that path.

The argument Paul uses is called reductio ad absurdum -- reduce to absurdity. Thinking it through, he points how the conclusions are unavoidable ... and absurd.

This happens more times than you would care to imagine. Take, for instance, the classic, "If it feels good, do it." Really? Are you really going to hold that argument? So if it feels good ... to slash someone's tires, do it? If it feels good to consume more alcohol than your body can manage, do it? If it feels good to slash someone's throat, do it? Are you sure you want to go down that path?

Or there is the quite common argument for the contradictory "same-sex marriage" concept. "What's the question? Clearly committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships are a good thing. That's marriage!" Okay, so let's try this same approach. Where does this argument take us? We'll assume the premise. "Committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships are a good thing." So, what about committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships between a male and several women? What about committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships between multiple people of multiple genders? If "committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships" is the basis for "good" in this scenario, on what basis would those be excluded? You see, it takes you places that those who hold the argument never intended to go. And it's unavoidable.

Oh, this one is pretty common. "There is no God. There can't be, because if there was a God, there would be no evil." Now, wait a minute. I'm pretty sure you do not want to go down that road. Because, you see, if there is no God, there is no definition of evil (or good). Good and evil become arbitrary and relative. What you classify as "evil" won't be what someone else does, and there is no valid basis to determine which is or isn't. So, proving the non-existence of God by the existence of evil is predicated on the theistic definition of good and evil. Delete that definition and you have no place to stand.

You'll find the same thing in biblical arguments. For instance, "God is not willing that any should perish." Okay, pursuing your line of reasoning, then, what can we conclude. Either no one perishes or God is not sovereign. You are certainly free to take your pick, but what you cannot conclude is that any perish and God is sovereign. If it is God's will that no one perishes, then no one will perish or God's will does not occur. Feel free to pick one or the other. I'm pretty sure, however, that when you made that original argument, that was not where you planned to end up. (Note: Since the original premise was a quote from Scripture and the conclusion is untenable, it might be a good idea to reexamine what was meant by the original quote than making it a blanket statement of God's divine will.)

I've heard that human beings have the remarkable capacity to think logically, step by step, to the wrong conclusion. I think it's easy to see. Thinking an argument through to its inevitable conclusion is a good thing. Maybe not easy to do, but good.

Strong Encouragement

This passage from Hebrews is one of the most heartwarming, comforting passages you'll find in the Bible.

So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of His purpose, He guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us (Heb 6:17-18).

You see the design, I'm sure. We "have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us." Excellent! On what is that strong encouragement based? It is based on God's promise and God's nature. He promised with an oath, and based on that oath as well as His "unchangeable character", His inability to lie, we can be quite sure of the hope set before us.

That's really good stuff. Really good.

What I found interesting in reading this was that it comes on the tail of one of the harshest, most frightening passages you'll find in the Bible.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (Heb 6:4-6).

Now, that passage has all sorts of unpleasant attached to it. For instance, in their zeal to assure us that salvation cannot be lost, there are those who will tell you that the description at the beginning is not a genuine believer. It's just an "almost" believer. I can't see it. "Almost" believers are not enlightened, have not tasted of the heavenly gift (actually tasted), do not have a share in the Holy Spirit. They may, by some interpretation, have "tasted of the goodness of the word of God", but certainly not "the powers of the age to come". No, I'm afraid this doesn't qualify as an "almost" believer. This is your basic genuine believer.

Beyond that, there is the harshest language used here. It's not really hard to repent. It's not nearly impossible to be restored. Even those who claim this is a biblical text proving that Christians can lose their salvation will almost never agree that salvation, once lost, is always lost. But the language demands it. It is impossible to be restored to repentance.

And beyond that, the reason for the impossibility is, frankly, terrifying. What hope can you offer to one who is "crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding Him up to contempt"? Really, once the crucified Lord becomes insufficient for salvation, there is nothing left.

In all of this terrifying discussion, then, it is quite interesting that the author of Hebrews finds comfort, "strong encouragement". What turns the text from the terrible to the comforting? "Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things -- things that belong to salvation" (Heb 6:9). You see, while the first part of the chapter involves some of the most serious cautions held in the Bible, the author of Hebrews is quite confident that those who are actually saved have "better things". Better than what? Better than the apostasy ("fallen away") of the previous thought. Better than "crucifying once again the Son of God". People who are genuinely saved don't do that.

Now, you can, if you like, stare at that terrifying portion and worry about your status. I'd understand if you did. Very frightening stuff. Or you can revel in the wonders of "better things" and rest in the promise and character of God to "have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us." The warning is probably a good thing to note. But the comfort of God's incapability to lie, to change, or to fail all make for great relief. And, by the way, that "strong encouragement" is only made that much larger when contrasted with the terror of the alternative. Really bad news makes really good news much, much better.

Pro-Death?

According to the CDC, the top causes of death in the United States in 2011 were:

Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

According to The Guttmacher Institute, "In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed." (This number is only for induced abortions. It does not (because it cannot) include the number of fertilized eggs aborted by means of abortifacients.) In that same year (2008), the CDC says that there were 4.2 million live births. Thus, for every four live births in 2008, one baby was killed in the womb ... that we can account for.

Doing the math, then, while the "leading cause of death" in America kills upwards of 600,000 people a year, the unnamed "leading cause of death" in America kills twice as many. Abortion kills more than heart disease and cancer combined. Oddly, the top 4 on the CDC's list are high priorty health issues. The actual leading cause of death is legally approved, heartily defended, and often referred to as a "women's health issue" to the exclusion of the death that is occurring.

It would be nearly impossible, in light of this, to consider America "pro-life". (And I don't mean that as a compliment.) Would it be fair, then, to characterize America as "a culture of death"? Maybe. You decide.

Bishop...ess?

Perhaps you've heard. The Church of England decided some time ago to ordain women as priests. Recently, however, they voted to refuse to allow women (priests) to be bishops. That, you see, would be going too far.

There are, of course, debates going on over this. Douglas Wilson over at Blog & Mablog has been writing about repeatedly. (Great line from Wilson's essay: "The pig, once swallowed by the python, has to move on down the line.") Theologian N.T. Wright stepped in to explain how stupid it was. Denny Burk has responded to N.T. Wright and Scott from Prodigal Thought has countered Wilson. Well, you get the idea.

The question is not merely "Should women be allowed to be bishops?", but "Is there a difference between men and women?" The question is about egalitarianism or complementarianism. Did God create us to be the same -- coequals in value and role -- or complementary -- equal in value but different in role?

Well, of course, it's quite clear, isn't it? "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). So what's the question? We are all one in Christ. National origin, birth lines, and gender have nothing to do with it when we are "in Christ Jesus" because in Christ Jesus we are all one.

This, of course, begs the question. If this is so, why did Paul say, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12)? And, while we're at it, Paul, what's up with the "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3)? And the questions don't stop there. Why are wives told to "respect" and "submit to" husbands but husbands are told to "love" wives? If there is no difference in role, why are the commands different? Why did Paul list "the husband of one wife" in the qualifications for elder/bishop/overseer if male was not an issue? And how in the world could he connect his 1 Tim 2:12 position to Genesis 1-3 if he knew it was changed? He, after all, wrote Galatians 3:28 as well as 1 Timothy 2:12-14. Was he, perhaps, forgetful ... or schizophrenic?

I think it's quite odd that women in the Church of England can be priests, but not bishops. The logic eludes me. If they can exercise authority over a man as a priest but not as a bishop, it's simply confusion ... at best. But the issue is not, again, that of priests and bishops. It is the ongoing and deepening question of whether or not God intended male and female to be equal in value (something all sides agree upon) but different in roles (the primary disagreement). Today's feminist-driven, egalitarian society would argue heartily from Galatians that clearly there are to be no gender differences. Oddly enough, they indicate that suggesting otherwise from those few verses I listed is poor exegesis. The good Bible student would see that the single verse on the subject proves the point that the multiples that disagree are not what they mean. That, you see, is good exegesis.

I'm not going to decide for you which is true. (Go on. Take a guess. Which do I favor?) The texts are there. And so are the adherents of both views. You can decide whether the historical position taken in the Church is exegesis or eisegesis¹. You can decide whether the Church succumbed early on to male domination instead of biblical egalitarianism. Are the rare and sporadic references to female leadership in Church history a product of errors or a product of misguided male leadership? (Note that seriously asking the question of women in ministry didn't occur until the 1800's.) But however you decide, you should ask the questions. And however you answer them, it should not be on the basis of popular feminist perspective. That would be eisegesis.
________
¹ Exegesis is the analysis of a text to interpret its meaning. Eisegesis is the reading into the text one's own meaning.

That's Entertainment

Some time ago I read an article on the problem of porn (for Christians). The illustration went something like this. Imagine that your next door neighbors visit with you and your spouse and say, "Look, we like you. We're swingers and practice an open sexual relationship. Why not join us for sex?" "Oh," you tell them, "I'm sorry, but we can't do that. We don't engage in sex outside of our marriage." "No problem. We understand. Not everyone is like us. So how about this? Why not come over and just watch us have sex? No participation. How about that?" "No," you tell them, "that wouldn't be right either. It's too much like being involved, you know?" "Oh, sure," they say. "We understand. So, how about this? We'll video it and send you a copy."

You see the problem. We know we're not supposed to participate and we know we aren't supposed to be there, but watching it on a video is okay? The difference between participating and watching the video is too small to justify it. Big problem.

It makes me ask another question, though. If it's wrong to have another couple entertain you with their sexual practices, is there other entertainment that is wrong? Who is coming into your home to entertain you?

I know Christians who routinely tell me, sometimes in hushed tones because it's not "nice stuff", about the TV shows they enjoy that offer hardcore contradictions to biblical thinking and godliness. Often it's presented as humor. Sometimes not. For instance, GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) is happy to report that nearly 3% of all regular characters scripted for TV shows represent the homosexual community, with FOX leading the pack with 7%. One report said that some 80% of shows have pro-homosexual themes or stories. Is that how we should be entertaining ourselves? Leaving "gay" out of the picture, it seems that the standard television programming fare is pretty straightforward. Whatever the theme is, the storyline will be "People having sex and occasionally engaging in the theme." So you'll have hospital themes where doctors and nurses are engaging in sex and occasionally treating patients or lawyer themes where lawyers are are engaging in sex and occasionally defending clients or cop themes where police officers are engaging in sex and occasionally stopping crime or ... well, you get the idea. Is that the kind of thing that we should find entertaining?

There are people on my television that I would not want to spend time with in my house. They are rude, cruel, mean, unkind, immoral, and all the time treated as royalty. Why is it that I invite them into my home as entertainment? Perhaps as ministry, but I'm not able to minister to the people on my television.

Is this wise behavior? Or do we need to rethink this? I have a feeling that we Christians will condemn behavior as sin on one hand while watching it as entertainment on the other. It may include porn, but even "family programming" has jumped wholesale to the dark side. And I have a feeling that this isn't likely a good thing. But perhaps that's just me.

Calling Out Christians

I have, on more than one occasion, offered the phrase "genuine Christians" in my writings. In case the implication is unclear, what I have meant by prefacing the noun "Christians" with the adjective "genuine" is that there are folks that call themselves "Christians" who are, in fact, not genuine. They are lying or they are deceived, but they are not genuine.

Is this a fair thing to say? I would argue that it isn't merely fair; it's biblical. We are told repeatedly in the New Testament that false teachers would be the bain of the Church. They would "come out from us" (1 John 2:18-19). John calls them "antichrists". They would cry, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name?" (Matt 7:22). Tares among wheat. Judaizers. Heretics. They are not a matter of question. They are a biblical certainty. The Bible is abundantly clear that there will be false "believers" in the Church. For me, then, to suggest the same is not revolutionary, but simply submitting to the Word of God.

Last month Peter Heck wrote a piece arguing that it's a sin for Christians to vote for Obama. Understand that he did so in response to a Roman Catholic bishop who said the same thing. When the candidate supports killing babies in and even out of the womb, when he discards what Jesus defined as "marriage" and considers Jesus's view as discriminatory, when he embraces as moral what the Bible clearly calls sin, this writer considers it unchristian to vote for that candidate. He considers the term "Christian Democrat", considering today's Democratic Party platform, an oxymoron.

Is this a fair thing to say? Again, on the surface, given the Scriptures and the facts, it is a general truth. There are fake Christians -- people who perhaps believe themselves to be genuine -- whose choices and words (1 John 2:19) demonstrate that they are fake. It is fair, biblical, and rational. But let me say this. I do not aim to be the one to point fingers at individuals. It is one thing to say "There are false Christians" and it is entirely another to say, "and you are one." Using Heck's example, it is entirely true that the Democratic Party holds large swaths of anti-Christian values. That's a general fact. But arguing that everyone who votes for the party holds the equivalent values is questionable. The same is true in the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic theology has some serious problems. It equates to "saved by works". It violates the concept of grace apart from merit (and does so explicitly). It eliminates imputed righteousness. If you hold to pure Roman Catholic theology, you do not hold to Christian theology. But I can say with absolute certainty that individuals in the Roman Catholic church do not subscribe (or even know of) that theology even though they're in that church. As a generality, then, the theology is wrong, but in terms of real individuals, I would not be able to say blindly, "All Roman Catholics are false Christians." It just isn't the case.

And, look, this isn't limited to "genuine Christians". I would, for instance, continue to stand on the certainty that homosexual behavior is a sin. On the other hand, beating my neighbor who is practicing homosexual behavior over the head with his sin would be pointless. Hunting down those in such behavior to shake my finger in their faces and warn them of God's wrath for that act wouldn't be of value. There are better approaches and, frankly, bigger concerns. (Trust me. No one is going to Hell because they committed a homosexual act. Rather, committing such acts is the product of a sinful life that needs Christ.) So declaring a general truth is not the equivalent to beating an individual over the head with the particulars.

Is it right to call out other Christians or to differentiate between "genuine" and "fake" Christians? Since Jesus did it, I'd have to say it is likely a good thing to do. Am I likely, then, to walk around pointing to people and telling them, "You know, you're not a genuine Christian"? No, not likely. I frankly don't know. So I will call out "genuine" versus "fake" in general, point to the differences, suggest that people in "this" category might need to check themselves, that sort of thing. Since God has not made me privy to the heart, so I cannot know. But for those who would argue that we should keep quiet about such things entirely, I would suggest that you'll need to take that up with Christ ... and the authors of Scripture ... first. You can give me your arguments after you straighten them out.

The New Normal

A woman I know is a single mother, the mother of two children whom she has spent most of her adult life raising. Her youngest just graduated from high school and she's on her own now, so to speak. She and her live-in boyfriend packed up and left big city living for the rural life. Maybe, some day, if they get settled enough, she might even marry the guy. Who knows?

The mother classifies herself as Christian. When her boyfriend was seriously injured in a freak accident, she called out to God. "Why would God do such a thing?" I, of course, didn't want to say, "Why wouldn't He? You aren't exactly living in sin on His behalf." But the guy has recuperated and she's not concerned any more. She is still concerned about her kids. When her 18-year-old son asked if he could have his girlfriend over to spend the night, she was aghast. "You don't get to do that!" "Why?" he asked. "You do." Her rationale? "This is my house, not yours. When you have your own house, you can decided what to do in it." Her older daughter is working full time and going to school full time to become a nurse. Mom is very careful to warn her repeatedly and publicly not to get involved with relationships with guys. "You've got your schooling to take care of. There's plenty of time after that."

This mother is not the point of this discussion. This mother simply illustrates a large number of parents offering an almost unified moral landscape. "I can do what I want and no one can tell me it's wrong. You know I know it's wrong because I keep telling my kids not to do it, but I'm going to indulge even while I tell them not to."

This parenting message is in contrast to the other side which, while certainly wrong, is at least more consistent. Like the story of the 50-something mother of 5 daughters who was upset that her 14-year-old daughter did not want breast implants. Outrageous! Mom had them. Her four older daughters had them. Why wouldn't the youngest daughter??!! But, no, this rebellious black sheep of the family wants to go to university and travel the world. Big breasts are necessary. Loser. In this scenario, mom has horrible issues ... that she is inflicting on her daughters as a good thing. Wrong, but consistent. "I do it; you should, too."

Indeed, parenting is not the point. What I find fascinating is the double standard that first single mom carried around. It's wrong to have sex out of wedlock ... unless, of course, I'm doing it. Or, it's fine to do it ... unless, of course, it's one of my kids who are. Like the double standard our country carries around on such issues. A president who commits adultery in office (and I mean literally in the office) is okay, but a general who did should resign. Adultery in theory is evil but if you actually do it it's not so bad. We all know that cheating on your spouse is dastardly, but there are websites dedicated to facilitating it and ... hey, look! ... Phoenix (my part of the world) ranked third in married men with mistresses. Reportedly some 31% of married men in Phoenix have a mistress. (And isn't it odd that a married man with a woman on the side has a "mistress", but a married woman with a man on the side has an "affair"? Why is one "evil" but the other just "an affair"?)

And we've nurtured these double standards for a long time. Men have a lot of sex with a lot of partners because that's what men do. They want "easy women", but they surely wouldn't marry one because no one wants to marry an easy woman, you know. So women need to be virginal. That, at least, was the case for some time. Of course, today it ain't necessarily so. Now men are evil for all their philandering and women that do it are feminists, leading the charge for equality.

A lot of time is spent disagreeing over what's right and wrong, it seems. "Oh, sure, you think that this behavior is wrong, but I think it's fine." I suspect it's not really as difficult as that. I suspect it's more of the same issue. We know what's right and wrong, but if I'm doing it, it's okay. We determine morality moment by moment instead of submitting to an actual standard. And we expect that God will surely agree with us on our current moral code, right? Well, He'd better! Or we're going to complain!

Hollow Man

Hi. My name is Hollow Man. I am not gender-specific. You’ll find me in men and women alike. The specifics may vary, but the underlying characteristics will remain the same. Let me tell you about myself. Who knows? You may know me better than you think.

My primary concern is for the individual. Of course, the individual I primarily have in mind is me. I determine right and wrong, good and bad, worthwhile or a waste of time by what best pleases me. I may take drugs because it makes me feel better or I may refuse to take drugs because it’s bad for me, but, bottom line, my evaluations are based on me. America loves individualism, and I am the personification of individualism. My goals, values, and interests are all oriented to what suits me best.

Older generations had this sense of "selflessness". They were willing to sacrifice personal gain and pleasure for the good of others – family, work, God, and country. I am not plagued with that malady. I know what is important. How I look is important. What I own is important. My comfort level is important. I may realize that what I have isn’t quite enough, so I will continue to strive for more. I am a lover of pleasure. I disdain the notion of delayed gratification and believe that we should seek pleasure wherever we may find it. The old "if it feels good, do it" is a reasonable motto for me. The reverse is also true: if it doesn’t feel good, it’s probably not worth doing.

Some have described me as narcissistic. I may be preoccupied with my own needs and desires, but isn’t self-esteem the number one priority? Some say that truth is important; I ask, "What is truth?" I subscribe to the notion that truth is relative – that there is no such thing as absolute truth – not recognizing that this is a statement of absolute truth. I disdain those who are intolerant and judgmental, not realizing that I am being intolerant and judgmental in this view. I will do all I have to do to obtain what I deserve. I will manipulate my friends, family, even God to get what I think I should have. There is, after all, no one who is more important than I am.

Entertainment is important to me. It comes in many forms. However, I don’t think I need to really do a lot to obtain it. I think that I should be entertained. If the show I’m watching isn’t entertaining, I’ll switch to another. If the game I’m playing isn’t entertaining, I’ll go to another. If baseball isn’t exciting enough, I’ll watch football or basketball. When I get tired of this music group, there’s surely another around the corner that will bring new excitement. I don’t realize, of course, that excitement doesn’t last, and, unfortunately, the things that entertain me today are boring tomorrow. But it isn’t my job to amuse me. It is the job of the entertainers – the media and the musicians and the actors and the sports stars and the amusement parks and . . . well, our society is clearly built on this concept, so it must be true.

Some have tried to push us beyond the here and now, but I understand better than that. The clearest presentation of the world we live in is the senses. Religion may try to impress God on us, and that’s fine as far as it goes, but there’s nothing like science for the truth. Science tests things and proves things and demonstrates things. Pictures are worth a thousand words, so why read if I have the TV? I live in a world tuned to the senses – I should indulge them. What I feel is all that’s ultimately real. To go beyond the senses is to venture into the unknown and unproveable . . . and therefore the irrelevant. The deep thinkers, philosophers, theologians and the like are really unimportant to real life. Fortunately these days there are few of that type.

School may be of some importance to me, but only so far as it gives me a better life. If I can make more money, I might pursue an education, but why do some schools require all that History and English and the like? I might even go so far as a Masters degree if it means a larger income, but you’ll rarely find people like me with more than that because, frankly, it serves no purpose. Reading is not a priority with me, either. If I do read, it will undoubtedly be fiction, since that can provide some form of distraction. Frankly, reading is not entertaining enough, when I can get the images fed to me on the TV or movies screen.

I have been accused of having no heroes, but that’s simply not true. My heroes are the rock stars or the movie stars or the sports stars or the fashion stars of the day. I admire their looks or their abilities or whatever currently strikes my fancy. I am not the least bit concerned about their virtue. Character is not an issue. Good is defined not as that which is virtuous or right, but as that which gives me the most pleasure.

It’s a funny thing with me, but I hate quiet and solitude. I will always have a radio or TV going or be surrounded by friends. I may, for instance, keep myself in good shape (because looking good is important to me), but even while I exercise I’ll have the headset on with music going. A vacation is a good thing not because I can think more, but because I can think less when I vacate. Anything I can do to avoid real contemplation is a good thing. Noise is better than quiet, activity better than rest, and anonymous crowds better than solitude. It is much better to do than to simply be.

I am Hollow Man. Perhaps you know me. Perhaps you are me. I certainly believe my shallow beliefs and pursuits are important, and I will never, never ask "Why?" or "Could I be wrong?" or "Is there more to life than me?" I wonder if you don’t identify with me.

One More Day

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Rom 1:21).

It appears that sinful humans have, at their core, a fundamental flaw. We suppress the truth (Rom 1:18). The result of this bottom-line error is that, although we know God, we do no honor Him as God or give thanks.

Failing to honor God and failing to give thanks -- two key elements in the downward spiral that is human sin. As a remedy for this, we have set aside one day a week to honor God as God and one day a year to give thanks. There. Problem solved. And I'm pretty sure you can see the inadequacy of our solution.

It's Sunday, a good day to honor God as God. Of course, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, in fact all of them are also good days to do just that. How would you go about doing so? Will you?

Thanksgiving was just this last week, a good day to give thanks. Of course, every day is a good day to give thanks. How about trying it today?

How about thanking God for that great job you have or the mediocre job you have or the lousy job you have or, if necessary, the lack of a job?

How about thanking God for excellent health, poor health, or anything in between?

How about thanking God for friends and family, those you have or don't have?

How about thanking God for being able to read, even if it happens to be this poor blog?

Whether strength or weakness, comfort or pain, ability or disability, pleasant or unpleasant, have or have not, we have very much to thank God for. Let's not limit it to one day. I don't plan to limit it to one lifetime.

The American Dream

On Wednesday, ABC News reported that the National Labor Relations Board had not yet decided whether they will stop the Walmart strikes. "Oh," you might say, "I wasn't aware that Walmart employees were union members." And you'd be right. They aren't. But the UFCW is organizing a picket against the stores.

I'm a bit confused myself. Apparently the union's strong arm euthanasia of Hostess didn't teach any lessons. "We need to stand up for our rights even if it costs everyone else theirs!!!" Apparently, despite all the laws in place protecting workers, Walmart is violating them. No, as it turns out, they aren't. So I suppose if you take a job at a company agreeing to work x hours for y pay, the company is wrong and even immoral for giving you x hours for y pay and you have the right to assault the company and their customers with your complaints.

Seriously, I'm not getting it. I don't recall living in a country where people are assigned jobs at low-paying companies. I don't recall living in a society where companies can prevent you from looking for a different job. So get a different job! Oh, you can't? So the fact that the company doesn't give you the hours you want at the pay you want means that the company is bad?

Maybe Walmart doesn't give its employees the hours they would like. Maybe Walmart doesn't pay them the wages they would like. Maybe Walmart, in its efforts to both make money and remain competitive in the discount market, isn't paying the wages and benefits the employees would like. Does that mean that the right answer is to move the company out of the discount business (and, let's face it, on to going out of business because without giving the best prices in town, who's going to shop Walmart?) in order to meet the demands of the workers? Is it the job of the corporation to accede to the demands of employees, especially when we're not talking about illegal or even immoral labor conditions? If we are going to give the rights to the employees to determine their own wages without concern for the company, why would anyone want to run a business?

Clearly, with all these questions I'm just baffled by the idea. The unions killed Bethlehem Steel and subsequently the city of Bethlehem, PA, because they weren't interested in maintaining the business; they were interested in getting more for themselves. The unions assisted management problems at Hostess to nearly end their existence because they didn't care if the company stayed in business; they were interested in getting more for themselves. Walmart employees don't care if shoppers are inconvenienced or what the company would have to do to meet their demands; they are just interested in getting more for themselves. I suppose it's just a reflection of our national attitude. Take from the rich to those who have in order to give it to me. "Right" is determined by "what I want". "I don't care what it costs everyone else just as long as I get mine." The new American Dream, I suppose.

But Is It Good?

At Tufts University a student-led club attempted formal club recognition. You know, be able to schedule events, use space on campus, that sort of thing. The campus chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship included a requirement that those serving in leadership of the Christian organization must embrace "basic biblical truths of Christianity". Well, such a requirement would violate the diversity and non-discrimination requirements of the school. Thus, in order to remove that particular diversity and in clear discrimination against the group, the university banned them.

You see, there is something we know for absolutely certain. Diversity and non-discrimination are good, and their opposites are bad. No one doubts it. No one. Well ... almost. Because I'm not seeing it. Some silly examples. Diversity in the women's locker room is likely a bad idea. You want women in there, not mixed gender. No one would suggest that a physics course should include English and History and Social Sciences because when the focus is physics, you want ... physics, not "diversity". And if you're really hard over in favor of non-discrimination, I really want visit your store. Because you could charge me $20 for something and I could pay with a $5 and if you protest I'd say, "You're discriminating!" And, of course, you are. You're discriminating between a $20 and a $5. You'd better be.

The point is not that diversity or non-discrimination are bad. My point is that you need to think about it. As the example above illustrates, defending diversity and non-discrimination by eliminating diversity and discriminating is ... well, insane. Think about it. It's like the guy who is yelling at you for being intolerant and judgmental without recognizing that he is being intolerant and judgmental. It doesn't make sense. Or how about Liberty University (you know, Jerry Falwell)? They banned the Democratic Party club because "we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by the university". Oh, now that's evil. That whole banning of Christian groups is okay. Azusa Pacific's banning of a conservative political organization is probably a good thing. But banning a Democratic Party group? Wrong! You see, folks, it just doesn't make sense.

Here's a big one these days: Bipartisanship. With the reelection of the president, the big call is for the conservative members of Congress to lay down and die in favor of "bipartisanship" because, as we all know, bipartisanship is a universal good. Oddly enough, when the Left refuses to budge on principle, that's a good thing. When the Right does it, however, it's "politicking". It's a refusal to compromise. What we need is a compromise like the President gave those religious organizations that opposed the demand that they violate their beliefs by requiring them to pay for contraceptives for their employees. "Okay," they were told, "you just have to have your insurance pay for it." But ... that's what the original law stated and that's what the original problem was. In what sense is that a compromise? Well, it's in the sense that the President called it such, so it must be. Bipartisanship. It's a good thing! Or ... is it? Would we really be better off if everyone in Congress simply thought the same thing, made the same decisions, walked the same path? Or do we need multiple, differing voices to stand without bending when something is not right? Would the left want their side to "go along to get along" with the right? Or does bipartisanship only work one way? From all that I've heard, that seems to be the case. And that's not a good thing.

I'm sure you could come up with a longer list than I have of things that are certainly and universally considered "good", but when you think them through they don't quite work that way. "Equal opportunity" is another example. Who could disagree with that? Well, in Sweden in order to obtain "equal opportunity", a school has banned gender. Yes, that's right. No use of male or female pronouns. You won't find "Cinderella" or "Snow White" in their library because that serves gender stereotypes. The aim is to eliminate gender role thinking and gender differences and provide "equal opportunity". You know, of course, that the opportunity will be equal in only one direction. Girls, for instance, will be allowed to play on boys teams, but you won't soon be seeing boys allowed to play on girl's teams. That just wouldn't be fair! So some people are more equal than others and "equal opportunity", as good as it sounds, comes into question.

You know, sometimes what we think is clearly and obviously good may not be. Do you suppose we're just as confused about "bad"? Why do humans find it so difficult to think these things through? I'm pretty sure you can supply your own answers.

Thanksgiving Day, 2012

Perhaps it's passé to do a Thanksgiving Day post about thanksgiving. I mean, everyone does it, don't they? We know how it works. You're thankful. Yadda, yadda, yadda. And, being somewhat of a latent nonconformist, I might agree. However, coming here at the tail end of the election results with so many dark portends and rising fears and concerns, I thought that perhaps thanksgiving at Thanksgiving would be just what the doctor ordered. You know: "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God" (Phil 4:6). I've let my request be made known to God. I think some thanksgiving is in order.

First, in all the standard lines about giving thanks, it is so often unsaid to whom you are grateful. "I'm grateful for ..." is all well and good, but atheists celebrate Thanksgiving Day as well as believers. They're just not grateful to the same provider. So let me say up front and without equivocation that what I'm grateful for I'm grateful to God for. So while I'm grateful for the income, for instance, that comes from my job, I recognize that it ultimately is provided by God. While I'm thankful for my wife who is kind and loving and gives me so much and does so much for me, I recognize that it is all ultimately provided by God.

I am, then, grateful for lots of the "ordinary" things. You know. Enough to eat, a comfortable place to live, the clothes on my back, a job, a great family, a good church, all that stuff. I have a very pleasant life and I am very thankful for it. It is, in fact, so "ordinary" that sometimes it's easy to forget to be grateful, so I acknowledge that, repent of that error, and once again thank God for all that He has so graciously provided in those things. In, oh, so many ways, God has been very, very good to me. Mine is an extraordinarily pleasant life.

Beyond the ordinary, however, I'm grateful for the "unusual". I'm grateful for the blood condition that requires constant medication and monitoring. I cannot be complacent. I cannot fail to pay attention to what I eat or do. It's a good thing, a "weakness" that is a gift from God to remind me to be always and utterly dependent on Him. Thank you, God.

I'm thankful that God has put Barry Obama back in the White House. Not because I expect pleasant things. Indeed, I don't. Not because it reflects well on my nation. Indeed, it doesn't. But I am grateful because in all situations God is in charge, God works all things after the counsel of His will, and God will always does good. That may mean comfort or judgment. It will mean what's best.

I'm grateful primarily for my God Himself. Good times or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, blessings or problems, I can always be confident that He will do what's right. There is always purpose and always good in God's works and plans. When times don't look so good and circumstances look bleak, it's good to have a God I can trust. For that I am immensely grateful.

The Christian Duty to Vote

Now that it's past, I think I'll put this out there. That way I can do it without undue pressure or guilt while still making a plain statement and you can conclude what you wish. Nor can I be accused of partisanship. It isn't a call for you to elect my favorite candidate (especially since I've made it abundantly clear that I didn't have one). If you think my position is sound and you have something to remedy, there will be future voting opportunities and you can certainly register to vote now.

Maybe you didn't vote. Fine. But, is it the Christian's duty to vote? That's the question I want to examine.

First, let me be perfectly straightforward. Voting is not biblical. I mean ... duh. Governments of the Bible were not "of the people". What we take for granted as foundational today was unheard of in biblical times. Governments were by right of power or divine appointment and were kings, lords, sovereigns. So you won't find anything in Scripture that says "Thou shalt vote" let alone how Jesus would vote or guidance on the proper candidate to lead a country (or a state or ...). Thus, I would have to argue that failing to vote is not a sin.

I would argue, however, that the Bible has other things to say on the matter and, if you follow my thinking, I believe you'll conclude that it is the duty of believers to vote. First, we know that "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1). There is in many Christians a sense of the sacred and the secular. Some things are sacred -- the Church, worship, godly living, that sort of thing. Some are secular -- the car you drive, work, entertainment, and the like. Human government falls in the "secular" category. And this is false. The division is false. If God cares when a sparrow falls and numbers the hairs on your head, it cannot be suggested that some things just fall outside His areas of concern. And since the question is that of government, and governments "have been instituted by God", don't fall into the lie that government is secular and not your concern.

Beyond that, the Bible has more to say on voting than you might have realized. Take, for instance, Deuteronomy 1:13. "Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads." Now that's interesting, isn't it? Notice the last statement. "I will appoint them as your heads." This is in perfect keeping with the Romans 13 verse. All authority is from God. "I will appoint them as your heads." And yet, the command is to choose them for yourself. Thus we have God commanding His people to choose leaders that He will ultimately appoint as authority. In other words, God uses means in what He does. Our method of government calls on us to do precisely that: Choose wise, understanding, and experienced men for our leadership. God establishes their authority, but we choose.

We know that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov 14:34). Now, for individuals, "righteousness" comes from God and is reflected in how we align ourselves with God's values. For nations, righteousness is not the same animal. It is a product of the leadership. Thus, a "righteous nation" would be the product of leadership that most closely aligns the laws and actions of a nation to God's moral values. It's a different concept. Thus, in order for a nation to be more righteous, it requires leadership with more righteous values. Similarly we know that "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked rule, the people mourn" (Prov 29:2). Simple statement of fact.

So if righteousness exalts a nation and if "when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice" and if we are commanded to love our neighbors (and I would hope that no one would begin to doubt a single one of those premises), then it seems to me that while it may not be a sin for Christians not to vote, it would certainly be a duty to vote. If we love our neighbors and see that righteous leadership produces joy in our neighbors, it would be required of us to try to obtain righteous leadership for our neighbors, would it not? (Please note, by the way, that "the lesser of two evils" argument so often floated against voting at all is really stupid. All elections and all leadership for all time since Adam left the garden of Eden has been, at best, the lesser of two evils since there has never been a truly righteous, sinless human leader. Don't fall for that line. And national leadership is not church leadership, so don't buy into the religious litmus test: "I will only vote for a Christian." The aim is to elect people who share the closest values to God's values.)

Voting records indicate that genuine Christians in America are really poor voters. They have historically been split between Republican and Democrat. On one hand, that's no big deal because neither "Republican" nor "Democrat" is defined as "Christian". On the other hand, the Democratic Party has for decades espoused values antithetical to genuine Christianity. But beyond the splits between the two parties, the sheer numbers (or lack thereof) of genuine Christians voting has been dubious. One estimate I read suggested that less than half of evangelical Christians voted in the 1996 election. Worse, Time Magazine reported that in 2008 Barack Obama "captured 53% of the Catholic vote" and 44% of the votes of "voters who attend religious services". "Voters who worship at least once a month preferred Obama 53% to McCain's 46%." In Michigan Obama won 33% of the white Evangelical vote -- 30% in Indiana. Thus, those who classify themselves as Christian and with a little more strength than in name only voted largely in favor of the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for the office.

If you believe that "righteousness exalts a nation" and if it is true that "when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice" (you know, like the Bible says), then it would seem obvious that it is indeed the Christian's duty to vote. Abstaining is not an act of love for your fellow man. It is an act of selfishness. I don't know how much of the Christian vote elected our current president either directly or in absentia, but surely you can see that voting is a privilege and a duty for anyone who is sincere about biblical values. Don't let another one go by.